Summary of Concerns

The proposed changes in H.B. 553 broaden definitions using vague and poorly defined terminology. This opens the door for people to report suspicions of child abuse based more on personal bias than on evidence, and it invites a highly subjective exercise of power by CPS investigators in determining whether abuse has taken place. For your convenience, the bullet points below reference page and line numbers in H.B. 553 from the PDF of the bill as introduced:

• The bill removes “health” of the child as a primary goal of child welfare, and replaces it with the vague and subjective terms “emotional, physical, psychological, or mental well-being.” This allows government investigators to investigate families and even remove children from their homes based on how the investigators interpret those terms (see page 7, line 17; page 8, line 33).
• The bill places the burden on parents to prove that any “serious injury” to a “non-ambulatory” child is not the result of abuse, turning the principle of being considered “innocent until proven guilty” on its head (page 9, line 19).
• The bill changes the definition of “imminent danger” to include “risk to a child’s psychological or emotional well-being . . . or mental health” (page 4, line 23). Again, these terms are undefined.
• The bill broadens the definition of “neglect” to include “failure by a child’s parent, guardian, or custodian … to provide proper supervision, care, and attention to a child, or provide adequate … education, or proper medical care” (page 5, line 13). This language could be used by a child welfare investigator to justify removing a child from a home simply because the parents gave the child reasonable independence (such as playing outside without supervision), or if the parents chose medical care for the child that was not preferred by the investigator. It would also give the investigator power to determine the “proper” amount of parental attention.
• The bill’s redefinition of “neglect” also includes the criterion that “the child’s physical, mental, emotional, or psychological wellbeing . . . is likely to suffer serious impairment” (page 5, line 16). Evaluating the risk of something happening in the future that has not happened before invites a highly subjective exercise of power.
• The bill allows investigators, when determining whether a child is at risk of suffering “serious impairment,” to take into consideration “the child’s social, emotional, learning, mental health, behavioral health, or physical conditions” (page 7, line 24) and “ability to fully engage in school” (page 7, line 26). These factors are so broad and vague that families could conceivably be investigated, and children removed from their homes, for almost any reason.
• The bill rewrites the current definition of “serious impairment” in New Hampshire law, allowing a CPS investigator to seek to remove a child from his or her home, if the CPS investigator believes that there has been “parentification.” According to the bill, this “occurs when a child is regularly expected to take on parental responsibilities, including but not limited to providing emotional or practical support for a parent or another individual, beyond what would be reasonably expected for the child’s age and circumstances, instead of receiving that care and support themselves” (page 8, line 2). It remains to be seen how this would be interpreted, but it is possible that a child doing simple household chores like sweeping the kitchen floor or taking out the trash, or comforting a parent after a tragic life event, could be considered neglected because the chores or behavior constituted “support for a parent.” This change fundamentally misunderstands family life.
• The bill completely redefines psychological maltreatment, currently defined at N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:3(XXV-a) as “pervasive and emotionally abusive behavior, which shall include, but not be limited to, patterns of threatening, berating, or demeaning behavior,” to a far broader definition that could easily include normal parenting. For example, “psychological maltreatment” is redefined to include “coercing, which shall include compelling to action using threat or force; and, which may adversely affect the child cognitively, emotionally, and socially” (page 7, line 3), which could be applied to parents telling a child to clean his or her room or lose iPad privileges.

TAKE ACTION NOW

We urge you to contact your New Hampshire state representative and ask him or her to reject H.B. 553. You can find your state representative here.

It is not necessary to identify yourself as a homeschooler since this would impact all parents. Your message can be as simple as the following:

“As a parent, I urge you to oppose H.B. 553. This badly written bill would allow loving and caring parents to be investigated by the New Hampshire government for nearly any decision involving their children. New Hampshire law already provides robust protections for children. H.B. 553 is unnecessary and threatens the parent-child relationship.”